Functional diversity of ground beetles improved aphid control but did not increase crop yields on European farms.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Ecological Society of America Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9889808 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1051-0761 (Print) Linking ISSN: 10510761 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Ecol Appl Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: Washington, D.C. : Ecological Society of America
      Original Publication: Tempe, AZ : The Society, 1991-
    • Subject Terms:
      Coleoptera*/physiology ; Aphids*/physiology; Animals ; Europe ; Crops, Agricultural ; Biodiversity ; Farms ; Pest Control, Biological/methods ; Crop Production/methods
    • Abstract:
      Land-use intensification is often associated with a decline in functional diversity, potentially undermining the provision of ecosystem services. However, how changes in traits affect ecosystem processes remains poorly understood. Variation in trait values among species in a community may drive ecosystem processes. Alternatively, the mass ratio hypothesis proposes that trait values of the dominant species in a local community are related to ecosystem processes. Using data from 159 farms in six European countries, we quantified the impact of local and landscape-level land-use intensity on ground beetles as pest control agents. We then assessed the extent to which functional diversity and community-weighted mean trait values relate to pest control and cereal yield. In addition, we assessed how the responses to land use and the effects of different species on pest control and yield varied with their traits to compare the relative impact of the traits studied. Functional diversity of ground beetles improved aphid removal, but did not translate into higher crop yields. Pest control of aphids was enhanced by a higher proportion of smaller, mobile ground beetles with a preference for the vegetation layer. Smaller, predatory ground beetles in communities improved crop yield. The magnitude of responses to land-use intensification and the effects on pest control and yield were more strongly influenced by body size than other traits. Our study provides evidence that reduced management intensity can improve pest control by supporting small-sized, macropterous ground beetles. In contrast to the claims of ecological intensification, our joint analysis of the direct effects of land use on yield and indirect effects via functional diversity of ground beetles and pest control suggests that ecosystem services by ground beetles cannot compensate for the yield gap due to a reduction in land-use intensity.
      (© 2024 The Author(s). Ecological Applications published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Ecological Society of America.)
    • References:
      Ecology. 2008 Dec;89(12):3400-12. (PMID: 19137946)
      Oecologia. 2016 Apr;180(4):923-31. (PMID: 26796410)
      Trends Ecol Evol. 2001 Jun 1;16(6):279. (PMID: 11369096)
      Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Feb 22;282(1801):20142620. (PMID: 25567651)
      Science. 2006 Nov 3;314(5800):812-4. (PMID: 17023613)
      Ecol Appl. 2024 Dec;34(8):e3035. (PMID: 39373261)
      Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 1;10(1):1481. (PMID: 30931943)
      Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2019 Jun;94(3):999-1022. (PMID: 30548743)
      Ecology. 2011 Aug;92(8):1573-81. (PMID: 21905424)
      PLoS One. 2016 Jan 05;11(1):e0146329. (PMID: 26730734)
      Trends Ecol Evol. 2023 Sep;38(9):802-811. (PMID: 37202283)
      Ecol Lett. 2012 May;15(5):436-43. (PMID: 22380767)
      Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2012 Aug;87(3):661-85. (PMID: 22272640)
      Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Feb;34(2):154-166. (PMID: 30509848)
      Ecology. 2018 Aug;99(8):1771-1782. (PMID: 29727489)
      C R Biol. 2010 Jun-Jul;333(6-7):539-53. (PMID: 20541165)
      Ecol Lett. 2019 Jul;22(7):1083-1094. (PMID: 30957401)
      Science. 2019 Dec 13;366(6471):. (PMID: 31831642)
      Ecol Appl. 2017 Jun;27(4):1167-1177. (PMID: 28132400)
      Science. 2000 Mar 10;287(5459):1770-4. (PMID: 10710299)
      Ecology. 2016 Mar;97(3):754-64. (PMID: 27197401)
      J Anim Ecol. 2008 Sep;77(5):1072-8. (PMID: 18540967)
      Nature. 2012 Jun 06;486(7401):59-67. (PMID: 22678280)
      J Anim Ecol. 2017 May;86(3):511-520. (PMID: 28118484)
      Science. 2001 Oct 26;294(5543):804-8. (PMID: 11679658)
      Nature. 2019 Oct;574(7780):671-674. (PMID: 31666721)
      Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Apr;28(4):230-8. (PMID: 23153724)
      Sci Adv. 2019 Oct 16;5(10):eaax0121. (PMID: 31663019)
      Nat Commun. 2015 Jun 16;6:7414. (PMID: 26079893)
      Oecologia. 2011 Sep;167(1):181-8. (PMID: 21424717)
      Ecology. 2010 Jan;91(1):299-305. (PMID: 20380219)
      Funct Ecol. 2018 Mar;32(3):809-819. (PMID: 29657351)
    • Grant Information:
      2019-NC-MS-11 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); BiodivERsA3 ERA-Net COFUND Programme (2018-2019 BiodivERsA Joint Call) (FunProd); NKFIH KKP 133839 Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office; Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR); UMO-2019/32/Z/NZ8/00008 National Science Centre; 662944 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG); FIP 16/1 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG); BiodivERsA3/2018/885/FunProd Slovak Academy of Sciences
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: ecological intensification; ecosystem services; landscape composition; land‐use intensity; pest control; predation; traits
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20241007 Date Completed: 20241202 Latest Revision: 20241204
    • Publication Date:
      20241204
    • Accession Number:
      PMC11610661
    • Accession Number:
      10.1002/eap.3035
    • Accession Number:
      39373261